Hi - If I were you I would convert any Excel glossaries to MultiTerm, then you get indications in your source segment that a term there is in the Multiterm termbase and you can use the QuickInsert to insert the correct term in your target segment.

Subject:

Comment:

The contents of this post will automatically be included in the ticket generated. Please add any additional comments or explanation (optional)

But, as posted above, this is probably a bad idea. Use MultiTerm for glossaries. There are dozens of decent guides on how to do a MT import using MultiTerm Convert, on proz and elsewhere, so I'm not going to look them up for you. Just do a google search.

Subject:

Comment:

The contents of this post will automatically be included in the ticket generated. Please add any additional comments or explanation (optional)

The contents of this post will automatically be included in the ticket generated. Please add any additional comments or explanation (optional)

Stefan de BoeckBelgium Local time: 03:24 English to Dutch + ...

bad glossaries

Oct 12, 2011

FarkasAndras wrote:
... this is probably a bad idea. Use MultiTerm for glossaries.

Quite so – if they’re any good, which, sadly, is rare.

The idea is to have a delivered glossary available without interfering*, ie you’d have it as an added TM in Studio strictly for concordance searches– not in MultiTerm, which would turn into something mindnumbingly stupid if, say, you have been sent a Trojan horse with entries such as

Copy Kopiëren

Note the upper case chic, and that the verb is an infinitive, which is infinitely useless.

So – a TM it will be.

And here’s another way:

Open the tab delimited .txt file in Studio. Select all segments (rows) and change their translation status to Translated. Save file and import into an existing Studio TM. Done.

*MultiTerm is a magnificently controllable typing aid.

Subject:

Comment:

The contents of this post will automatically be included in the ticket generated. Please add any additional comments or explanation (optional)

Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member for the following reason: Not edited

The idea is to have a delivered glossary available without interfering*, ie you’d have it as an added TM in Studio strictly for concordance searches– not in MultiTerm, which would turn into something mindnumbingly stupid if, say, you have been sent a Trojan horse with entries such as

Copy Kopiëren

Note the upper case chic, and that the verb is an infinitive, which is infinitely useless.

So – a TM it will be.

That's your opinion, not objective reality.
The fact of the matter is that MT does automatic lookups in the background and allows for term insertion in Studio (the "typing aid" functionality). You lose these if you go the TM route, as well as getting your termbase hits mixed with real TM hits. And... what exactly do you get in return? Why is a TM a better way to use your glossary? I honestly can't think of anything.
If the glossary is of poor quality or unsuitable for auto-insertion, then that might limit its usefulness as a MT termbase - but importing it into a TM does nothing to fix any of these problems. Doing things like lower-casing everything before importing the termbase might.

Stefan de Boeck wrote:
And here’s another way:

Open the tab delimited .txt file in Studio. Select all segments (rows) and change their translation status to Translated. Save file and import into an existing Studio TM. Done.

That won't work, at least not in the simple way you're suggesting. If you open a tab delimited txt file in studio, both columns will be part of the source segment. Studio might have some special feature that does what you're suggesting (open a tab delimited file as a bilingual file), but I haven't heard of it yet. Using one of the many aligners/TMX converters is surely easier.

[Edited at 2011-10-12 15:51 GMT]

Subject:

Comment:

The contents of this post will automatically be included in the ticket generated. Please add any additional comments or explanation (optional)

Stefan de BoeckBelgium Local time: 03:24 English to Dutch + ...

quite

Oct 12, 2011

That's your opinion, not objective reality.

Really? Objective and all that?

… (the "typing aid" functionality). You lose (this)

No, I keep it fully functional, by preventing the glossary to interfere.

… as well as getting your termbase hits mixed with real TM hits

No, the gloss is in a separate TM. This is Studio after all. Glossy TM would have a distinctive CrU (as imported in TWB) or even a unique string (such as ‘ixop’) added on the source side to easily and clearly distinguish them from other TM hits.

Why is a TM a better way to use your glossary? I honestly can't think of anything.

To have the thing ready when actually needed. Not whenever it thinks it is needed.

So, your point is that you find a glossary of dubious quality less intrusive/annoying if it's added as a TM then if it's added as a termbase.
That may be true for you in certain circumstances (you have another, better termbase that you're using for autosuggest, the glossary is indeed of dubious quality and you won't be consulting it very often, you don't mind having to check the IDs in the TM hit window etc.)
However, there isn't much reason to believe that these circumstances are present in the OP's case, or the case of anyone else reading this thread. I don't think he ever mentioned that the glossary is a poor one. As a general rule, it's not a good idea to make a TM out of glossary data unless you have clear reasons for doing so. In this particular case, it's pretty clear that the reason why the original poster asked about making a TM out of his glossary is that he simply didn't know about MT termbases (see 2nd post).

[Edited at 2011-10-12 19:23 GMT]

Subject:

Comment:

The contents of this post will automatically be included in the ticket generated. Please add any additional comments or explanation (optional)

Stefan de BoeckBelgium Local time: 03:24 English to Dutch + ...

redirect

Oct 13, 2011

As a general rule, it's not a good idea to make a TM out of glossary data (…)

Speaking generally, without laying down the rules here, it may be the smartest thing to do. In particular I’m thinking of the Microsoft.TBX. A very useful thing to have around, but do I need MultiTerm to dig up and present its entries for

driver
Java
key
plus sign
link
Find

?
Trust me, I don’t. So a TM it is, enabled only for concordance.
(With omission, fyi, of the Definition and Part of Speech fields, so the TUs stand out when they pop up in the concordance window. User name of BIGFOOT. I indulge in silliness much of the time, so if anyone out there should like to receive a MicroTerm.tmx EN-US and/or -UK into NL-NL, just mail me. It may be of more use than some convoluted macro or other.)

… the reason why the original poster asked…

I don’t know why the original poster asked, but it was about converting an excel file, containing glossary data, into a .tmx.
Excel files, notoriously, are treated as holdalls. They may have a lot of useful data to which, however, the entire Microsoft.tbx thing applies, and, besides these (the holdall effect) e.g. a long list of error messages and their translation – as I’ve seen delivered, I’m not making this up – that won’t perform particularly well as terminology, or won’t even fit within the 256 character limit for MT2009/11 entries.
Which yet again is why, in the real world, it’s a good thing to know how to turn an XLSx not into a termbase – but into a TMx.

Subject:

Comment:

The contents of this post will automatically be included in the ticket generated. Please add any additional comments or explanation (optional)

To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:

Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.